Talk:Twilight
Problem I just realized that the described properties of Twilight make no sense. The planet is tidally locked, that's fine, but it is in orbit around a gas giant planet, not a star. Even if Twilight were in an orbit perpendicular to the system ecliptic a quarter of Twilight that doesn't face Gigaball would be exposed to the star (and that quarter would change gradually through Gigaball's year. If Twilight were in an orbit more or less lined up with the system ecliptic then Twilight would only receive reflected light from Gigaball through half of its orbit, during the other half Gigaball would block any light from reaching Twilight. However, even during the period where on Gigaball's daylight side the side facing away from Gigaball would be directly exposed to the star. Also, if the GC universe physics are supposed to match our own as far as normal physics goes then it should be noted that Jupiter is about as physically large as gas giant planets get. Adding more mass to a Jupiter mass body does not result in increased volume, they simply get more dense until they become stars. SoronelHaetir (talk) 00:52, March 10, 2014 (UTC) Answer Twilight Twilight is an Earth sized moon around giga ball and is sufficently distant from Star Yutoo so that the light is not enough to heat the Night Side. (A visitor on lets say standing on Mimas would realize how cold and dark it is.on the day side - side facing the star) Our sun appears as a very bright star and the thermal (infrared) radiation reflected by Mimas not enough to raise temperatures significantly) However Twilights day side (the side People asociate with light ) is the one turned towards the gas giant. The high albedo of Giga Ball reflects enough light from it's Sun turned side on the "Night side" of Twilight into the brighter side (Light conditions not side turned towards sun) but for people on Twilight the brighter side will be associated with Day So the Day Side of Twilight is turned towards the planet. Only when Twilight is on the night side of the big planet there is nothing the Big planet can reflect and it is dark all over twilight.The side turned towards the planet will however recieve light again (The night just gets a a little more light of a dstant star) but stays "Dark" Gas Planets I studied Physics so I take a tiny little offense in the tone you found in the second part of your statement. Of course I am sure you had no intention at all to do that. Still my professional side got a little miffed. No need to appologize of course. I am big girl. To call the GC Universe science fiction is alright and in order t tell my stories I must sometimes use handvavium but even the most exotic concepts are not completley without some real world basis. The ISAH drive , the translocator cannon, even GalNet is as phantastic as it sounds not without some hypothesis or even theory based on physics, theoretical physics. So to dismiss my writing as completly fantasy based hit a little close. Granted I overlook things (I know I should have described Twilight more detailed and mention the total lights out period) but I having an atmosphere the Moon would experience long periods of Twilight. Anyhow I am rewriting the story as we speak and when I come to twilight I add the missing details to the story and you can (or I will) add the moon to the Concept category) So I assure you I am not offended and will now attempt to convince you that there is thought and reason behind the things I describe: You state: Jupiter is about as physically large as gas giant planets gets Now this is a rather strong statement if you ask me. No one else is, as far as I know sure about the finite maximum size by volume a planet can be. As a matter of fact the very definition between failed sun, companion and Gas giant is not agreed by the scientific community Here is TrES-4 "is the largest planet found so far for which we actually know the size',There could be larger planets', but we have no way of measuring their sizes because they don't transit." TrES-4 is 1.7 times big TrES-4 is way bigger than it's supposed to be,For its mass, it should be much smaller. It basically should be about the size of Jupiter and instead it's almost twice as big." TrES-4 appears to be something of a theoretical problem, So I am glad we finally solved this as you worked out the physics. So silly me for creating a few planets that are bigger than Jupiter. One argument could be made that we have not even begun to map our galaxy.I can predict with a good chance of being right. TrES-4 is not the only planet of it's size. Applying your statement there can't be any thing bigger. I say the chances the same physics that allowed this "Puffy Planet" to exist could make it possible to have a planet of larger physical volumes. And speaking of failed suns. The largest star known VY Canis Majoris (a red Hyper giant) is a sun right? There are arguments that its temperature and low density (compared to other stars) could actually classify it as a failed sun. No at least in Hypothesis and for arguments sake (what differentiates a failed sun and a gas giant is anything but clear defined. I challenge you get a definite answer from any scientific source or find two physcists wo have the exact same oppinion on this subject) So if the largest sun for arguments sake is actually a failed sun and failed suns ( again just for the fun of speculating a funny thesis) could by community decision be defined as planets. Would VY Canis Majoris be then the largest Gas Planet in the known Universe...After all Pluto lost its classification by applying definition parameters. Neither the size nor any of the physical data defines it as planet. It is the cmmon consensus that defines and sets the limits for scientific accepted definitions. I have studied physics. Do you want me to tell you how many accepted theories have been disproven, how many definitions have been changed due to politics, international pressure disregarding science. How many definitions are agreed to by societies, only to be redefinded by another society (Scientific definitions should be self evident and do not be defined by votes .Do you know that Pluto lost its definition by Vote? Yes there is no argument that the physical characteristics and the discovery of other similar objects warant a change of definition. So what defines a planet shhould be decided soley on facts? Why did the Change request had to be voted (All Astronomers mind you and not the general public) and why was the result not 100 percent for or against? I could go on about the Big Bang Nazies, the Hawkins Fanboys or the Climate Change factologists (how can you claim the ocean temperature has risen xx percent when there is no posible way to measure that) Not everything printed in National Geographic or American Scientific is the gospel truth. As you see I could ramble on-but I hope I made my point. That in turn I have not managed to offend you and that you continue to read, edit and ask critical question. Never mind me, I of course love responding to discusions and having a debate. So with this I conclude and eagerly wait for your response VR Sorry, did not mean to come off at all confrontational. I do, however, still have problems with the described physics for this planetary system. If Gigaball is far enough from its star that the 'night' side of twilight is not warmed significantly by direct light from the star then I don't see that enough energy would be reaching Gigaball to then light the 'day' side by reflection to the described degree. More light would reach Twilight's 'night' side directly from the star during the time that Twilight is between Gigaball and the star than could be reflected off of Gigaball, regardless of how high an albedo Gigaball has. I will use two examples from the Sol system to illustrate what I am saying, both tidally locked bodies. Temperatures on Earth's Moon range from 123C to -153C (courtesy of http://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html), while Jupiter's moon Io (ignoring the tidally induced volcanic contribution) is about -143cC(from http://www.solarviews.com/french/io.htm). Jupiter (and by extension Io) for example receives only about 4% the amount of light that Earth does, and that figure is not at all dependent upon what type of star Sol is (though the total amount of light receive of course does). If Twilight were orbiting perpendicular to the ecliptic the situation would actually be worse than I first thought because I wasn't taking into account that only a very small fraction of the energy received by Gigaball would then be reflected to where it would intercept Twilight. I would have no problem with Twilight as described if Gigaball were a star (even a small one), it's Gigaball being a planet that I have real problems with. SoronelHaetir (talk) 05:33, March 10, 2014 (UTC) I can see the valitity of your argument. Let us make/ describe the Planet / reclassify it as failed sun/ brown dwarf so it can radiate light. Twilight must however become a planet rather then a moon.Agree? Maybe offended was a too strong of a term.Rubbed the wrong way perhaps and not your fault at all. I think I was a tad emotional (I am sure you can guess why) It is however no excuse. I should be above biological conditions. Intellect and reason shoud elevate me above illogical emotion caused responses. Therefore I want to appologize for the overblown reaction to nothing. I should be more mature and detect these signs. Sorry VRVanessa Ravencroft (talk) 09:35, March 10, 2014 (UTC) Hey, no problem, I'm a big boy with a thick skin.. I can fully understand that you've been under a lot of stress lately trying to get your life back together after the stroke. SoronelHaetir (talk) 15:16, March 10, 2014 (UTC)